What does copyright protect? ĚýĚý

Copyright exists in every original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work. Creativity is not necessary, rather the only requires that an individual exercise their skill and judgement in creating a work. Text documents, computer programs, photographs, templates, plans, and sketches are just some of the works that can attract copyright protection. And unlike patents and trademarks, copyright arises as soon as a work is created.Ěý Moreover, a to produce, reproduce, perform or publish the work. Generally, the creator of a work is the copyright owner. However, employer-employee relationships are a big exception to this rule.

Employees and the Copyright Act ĚýĚýĚý

Under , employers own works created by their employees during the course of their employment – unless an agreement stating otherwise exists.

The decisions that have considered what “in the course of employment” means are limited and were decided pre-pandemic. However, these cases suggest that work created after hours and outside the office may still belong to the employer if it relates to the employee’s duties.

In 2009 ONSC 11215, the Ontario Superior Court held that it was immaterial that an employee had created a project on his own time. In this case, the court found that the employee was developing a product in his off-hours to compete with his employer.

Similarly, the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1998 ONCA 7126 held that labelling a project as “personal” does not determine who is the copyright owner.

Contrast these decisions with 2014 BCSC 1559. In this case, the defendant school employer was held liable for copyright infringement after publishing an instructor’s photo on the school’s Facebook page without permission. Although the teacher took the photo in a school classroom during a school event, the BC Supreme Court concluded that the location was not enough to transfer copyright to the employer. Again, the court looked at the nature of the employee’s duties and determined that the school hired the instructor to teach. Photography fell outside the scope of the instructor’s general employment duties, therefore the copyright did not belong to the employer.

It is worth noting that only applies to employees. Independent contractors generally retain copyright ownership over their work unless a contract states otherwise.

Distinguishing between employers and independent contractors

No single test exists to determine whether someone is an . Instead, the nature of the relationship needs to be examined to determine whether a person is in business for themselves (independent contractor) or working for someone else (employee).ĚýĚý
How much control an employer has over a worker’s activities is always a consideration, but other factors are also relevant including whether the worker supplies their own equipment, hires their own staff, is exposed to financial risk, and has the potential opportunity to make a profit.

The shift to remote work may be on the rise, but this does not necessarily change the nature of the employment relationship. Prior to the pandemic, working from home was generally not enough to transform an employee into an independent contractor.

What about moral rights?

Copyright protects two categories of rights: economic and moral rights. Economic rights (discussed above) relate to who can make money from a work. These types of rights can be assigned to anyone.
For instance, from an employee to their employer. Moral rights are different. These are personal rights that recognize that a work is an extension of a creator’s personality. As a result, moral rights can never be sold or given away to anyone – but . In an employment setting this is usually done by contract.Ěý

Without a waiver, an employee still has rights to attribution and the integrity of the work. Attribution includes the right to be credited, remain anonymous and use a pseudonym in association with the work. Integrity means that the work cannot be modified, distorted or mutilated in a way that prejudices the honour or reputation of the author.

The future of work

A published by PwC Canada concluded that remote work may be here to stay and employees appear to be for remote and flexible work options. In terms of copyright, the location where employees complete their work may not have much bearing on who owns a work.

If a work is created by an employee and is connected to their employment duties, it is more likely that the work belongs to the employer. Moving forward, the importance of clear contracts and agreements that address employee duties, particularly around IP ownership and any waiver of moral rights within a remote working environment may be of growing importance for both employers and employees.

Written by Maggie Vourakes, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post COVID-19 and working from home: Who owns the copyright? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

However, what hides behind the veneer of innovation is an inherent conflict that exists between what existed before and the advancements of today. IP, with all its touted benefits, shows a different face when it encounters culture and tradition. Instead of being a source of protection and innovation, IP can be used as a tool of cultural appropriation and exploitation instead. For groups such as the Amazonian Indigenous peoples, whose traditional use of the was patented by an American entrepreneur, IP is a source of frustration rather than protection.

The discord between IP and culture manifests in the inequitable experience that cultural groups have when trying to commercialize their Traditional Knowledge , the practices, skills, and innovations of cultural groups. The underlying principles and requirements of IP inadvertently skew the scale against cultural groups who try to commercialize TK. Partial towards a conception of inventions that sees ideas and products as being the genius of a , IP law requirements can exclude cultural groups from obtaining IP protection. Take patents, for example. When applying for a patent, the major requirements are that the idea or product has to be . For communities who are trying to patent ideas or methods that have been in their culture for generations, the requirement of being “new” just does not fit. Other requirements that need “all inventors” to be named are also an issue for communities who hold shared and inherited ownership of these ideas.

At the same time that cultural groups struggle to have their TK recognized as IP assets, there are other groups who are succeeding in commercializing the same. Pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food companies are Indigenous bush foods and medicine as sources of new (to them) biological resources that they then try to monopolize. Through this practice known as biopiracy, these companies are often able to patent traditionally used by cultural groups and profit off of their TK. That the same TK that cultural groups struggle to gain IP protection for are patentable by other parties shows that there is a problem when it comes to IP and the assets of cultural groups.

Governments and IP organizations seem to think that the solution to this problem is increased IP for cultural groups. However, awareness and access are futile if IP regimes are still structurally incompatible with TK. If the intention is to offer access to IP protection, then there needs to be allowances made regarding the characteristics of TK that make it unique; the shared ownership and historical origins of TK should not preclude these ideas from being offered IP protection.

Written by Anabelle Tung, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Fostering Innovation but Excluding Tradition: The Incompatibility of IP and Traditional Knowledge appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In their , The Hip alleges that Mill Street attempted to capitalize on their “fame, goodwill, and reputation” by making the lager appear to be a business partnership with the Band in several posts across the brewery’s social media accounts, including featuring in promotional content. The claim also alleges that the brewery “deliberately amplified” their marketing of the beer during lead singer Gord Downie’s final tour with The Hip in 2016 following the announcement of his terminal cancer diagnosis. The band’s legal team argues that Mill Street “depreciated the valuable goodwill” of The Hip’s mark by enticing their fans to purchase Mill Street products, putting the brewery in direct competition with the Band.

The band seeks $500,000 in punitive, aggravated and explementary damages, and additional damages for trademark infringement. The band also seeks an order expunging all of Mill Street’s registered 100^th Meridian Marks (collectively referred to as the “Meridian Marks”) and a public statement declaring that the brewery has no affiliation with the Band.

The key issues at stake are the validity of Mill Street’s registered Meridian Marks and their alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, a mark cannot be registered in a place of origin if it is “deceptively misdescriptive” by suggesting a product quality that is not in fact true, potentially limiting the use of a geographic landmark such as the 100^th meridian. In their statement of claim, the Band argues that Mill Street’s beer is actually sourced from between the 97^th and 95^th meridians, which are hundreds of kilometers east from the 100^th meridian, therefore using a place of origin mark in a misleading way. If the reviewing court is not convinced that the Meridian Marks violate s.12(1)(b), they may nevertheless find that The Hip’s existing trademark interests are sufficient to expunge Mill Street’s marks from the registry.

With regard to the copyright claim, the court will assess whether the use of the Band’s original work will be sufficient to substantiate infringement. Breach of copyright will be found where a party reproduces, publishes or communicates to the public an original work without licence or consent by the owners. The use by Mill Street of substantial portions of The Hip’s album artwork, particularly for commercial purposes, is likely to activate copyright interests. The proposed evidence suggesting that this alleged infringement contributed to loss of sales and business for the Band, especially in light of their with Stoney Ridge Winery, only strengthens this claim. Beyond copyright infringement, there may also be a violation of the Band’s moral rights if the unauthorized reproduction of their original works and the implied association with Mill Street are found to jeopardize either (i) the integrity of the work(s) or (ii) the honour or reputation of the Band. More evidence of disrepute and harm done will likely be required to show this linkage.

Written by Lauren Toccalino, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Battle of Canadian B(r)ands: The Tragically Hip launches lawsuit against Mill Street Brewery for trademark infringement appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Intellectual property (IP) can be used as a business tool by SMEs to grow. IP assets enable businesses toĚý,ĚýĚý and access to IP assistance through law firms, universities, and schools have certainlyĚý of these benefits among SMEs; however, there is still a gap in the understanding of exploiting IP in Canada.Ěý

It is crucial to recognize that registering IP is only a step towards fully realizing the commercial benefits of IP. It is unlikely that a business will be able to generate substantial financial returns unless the IP is successfully commercialized. IP commercialization means turning ideas or IP into with the view to profit and grow. Several obstacles impede the effectiveness through which IP is commercialized.

One significant issue is the lack of IP management strategiesĚý. This limited knowledge leads to the underutilization of IP held by SMEs – for example, patents owned by smaller entities have than those owned by large entities. To optimally utilize IP, SMEs must assess how their IP fits within the overall business goal and plan;ĚýĚýhelps bring value to the business through IP. There are several ways to commercialize IP (likeĚý), but choosing the most appropriate method depends on various factors specific to each business. Every approach has its advantages and drawbacks; irrespective of the method, a business will likely have to conduct an IP audit, IP valuation, and market analysis (to assess target markets, competitors, the receptiveness of IP, etc.).

SMEs may not have the appropriate level of awareness or the wherewithal to navigate the IP commercialization process. After experiencing challenges in raising capital for their business and IP protection, further investing in building an IP strategy may seem unattractive in the early stages. However, in an increasingly innovation-driven economy (with IP and data as the most ), IP commercialization becomes even more vital for success. Government initiatives, like the recently launched , are a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, more efforts need to be made at the grassroots levels to spread awareness about such initiatives and the importance of commercializing IP within Canada to avoid draining Canada’s innovation economy. There is a need to increase access to resources for SMEs – both in terms of finances and human capital skilled in managing IP – to tap into the immense potential that lies in SMEs.

Written by Tanya Tawakley, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Building an IP Commercialization Strategy – Impediments Facing SMEs appeared first on IPOsgoode.

What is NFT?

are non-fungible tokens based on Ethereum, powered by smart contracts. means it is unique and one of a kind. It can also be understood as a proof of ownership and authenticity. is an open source and decentralized software platform, and it is also the technology behind the cryptocurrency ether (ETH).

There are various platforms for NFT marketplace, such as , , and (for sports digital collectibles).

What does NFT mean for artist, collectors and the market?

Traditionally, artists would sell the physical copy of their painting, but this business model is not as suitable for digital artworks as physical artworks. Some artists were posting their artwork , or unable to sell their digital work, because there was significant difficulties in the digital work or authenticating the owner of the original copy when there is no physical copy. With NFTs and increasing amount of marketplaces for digital works, artists might be able to finally make money with their works.

This article written by Andrew R. Chow also mentioned that NFTs seemed to encourage and applaud more creative and innovative forms of artworks - “[m]any other artists working in groundbreaking and sometimes controversial styles are also receiving unprecedented interest from NFT collectors. Art with whirling 3-D renderings, street-style oversaturated color schemes, and hyper-referential (and often crass) cartoons are thriving.”

For collectors and the digital art market, NFT is a proof that the person is the owner of the original copy. Collectors might be paying more for “” or appreciation of digital arts than just for the money in this .

Concerns about NFTs?

Ioanna Lapatoura has discussed copyright ownership with respect to NFTs in her recent article on . NFT ownership is different from copyright ownership or a proprietary right over an actual asset. NFT is the “proof of owning an unique digital version of an asset, rather than the asset itself”. There is also new type of alleged infringement – copied artwork . Since NFTs are still new and developing, there is likely to be difficulties in enforcing intellectual property rights.

What’s in the Future of NFTs?

Some people view NFTs as cards and were bidding on the virtual future. Some people were skeptical and worrying that the NFT bubble might burst. Nonetheless, NFTs are providing creators of digital works a way to monetize their work product and receive real returns for their virtual work. Since NFTs are based on the Ethereum blockchain, maybe the other question that we ought to ask is – what is Ethereum and ETH’s long term growth potential?

Written by Ya-En Cheng, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post NFT, A New Crypto Trend For Digital Arts appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In response to issues with Canadian IP rights leaving the country and ensuring SMEs are better equipped to utilize their IP rights, the Ontario government commissioned an Expert Panel on Intellectual Property in 2019. The produced by the panel provided multiple recommendations such as the need to: clarify the mandates of commercialization offices within postsecondary and research institutions, develop a standardized, online, IP education curriculum for these institutions, implement a centralized provincial resource to provide legal and IP expertise, and develop a governance framework for organizations supporting entrepreneurial and innovation activities. In July 2020, the Ontario government it would begin to implement these recommendations by appointing a Special Implementation Team on Intellectual Property.

The recommendations of the expert panel appear to mirror the pillars of Canada’s Intellectual Property Strategy to some degree. The National IP emphasizes IP awareness, education and advice, strategic IP tools for growth, and IP legislation. The recommendations of the expert panel focus primarily on IP awareness, education and advice. Whether the “centralized provincial resource” will amount to tools that business owners, inventors and entrepreneurs can utilize beyond general advice is yet to be seen but on its face the recommendations focus on education and awareness. This focus appears to be a concerted effort to establish IP commercialization hubs within postsecondary and research institutions. These institutions are important avenues of innovation which will hopefully begin to capitalize on inventions stemming from work within them but also educate those moving on to invent elsewhere in Ontario.Ěý

It is unclear whether this framework is the most appropriate method for promoting IP commercialization in Ontario. have cited this as a narrow approach, stating that postsecondary institutions focus primarily on basic research that has little need for commercialization at its current stage. This presents problems for those wishing to license their IP because it will most likely require further development. While this concern is warranted, the implementation of a functional IP commercialization ecosystem would allow for postsecondary and research institutions to become more IP literate, and, in turn, more efficiently conduct their research to maximize IP commercialization. This would lead to a stable flow of IP rights in Ontario.

Written by Christian Bekking, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Ontario’s plan to improve intellectual property (IP) commercialization moves forward appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In addition to incorporating theoretical concepts of IP in engineering programs’ curricula, educators should also consider teaching students how to review publicly-accessible prior art documents. Learning to engage in prior art review will benefit engineers in two ways. First, since are granted to improvements made to already-patented inventions, engineers will be able to utilize knowledge about existing technologies in order to further innovate as opposed to investing resources into recreating old inventions. Second, learning how to access and review prior art documents in the early stages of their education will equip them with tools to avoid committing IP infringements in the future. Although engineering students tend to gain some insight into their IP rights and the patenting process during their capstone projects, they are often not adequately prepared to deal with the challenges of IP commercialization. To address this issue, a group of academics in Indiana University proposed the . The goal of the project was to bolster engineering students’ understanding of IP law through a set of elective courses that would count towards their degrees. The project also proposed interdisciplinary collaborations between STEM and law students to create a mutually educational experience for both sets of students in the area of patent law. At 91ŃÇÉŤ, the success of in through a collaboration between the at the Lassonde School of Engineering and the is a testament to the fruitfulness of these kinds of collaborations.

Incorporating IP education in engineering programs’ curricula will require significant investment of resources by Canadian universities. However, since a large portion of patent applications filed with CIPO seek to protect engineers’ inventions, empowering engineers-in-training by providing IP education and setting them up for future commercial success will be a worthwhile investment.

Written by Bonnie Hassanzadeh, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Intellectual Property Literacy in Engineering Programs: Empowering the Next Generation of Canadian Innovators appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On the most basic level, a patent gives you the ability to exclude all others from the invention the patent teaches. This 20-year term means that nobody else can make, sell or otherwise take advantage of your patent. If they do, they are infringing the patent and you can sue them. However, a patent is much more than an enforcement tool, it can also be your most valuable asset.

Even before your patent is issued, your invention may form the basis of a start-up company. Perhaps, you’ve invented the new wonder-drug and you decide to leave the world of academia to build a pharmaceutical empire. With your patent in hand, there are a few things to consider before you venture into the world of IP commercialization. First and foremost, you want to make sure to protect your IP. You’ll always be the inventor of the patent, but it is good practice to assign the patent ownership to the company. Both patents and companies often have co-inventors or co-founders, which can make things complicated. If the company does not own the IP, a fall-out between co-inventors could prove fatal. In this case, the unhappy inventor could essentially hold the IP hostage preventing the company from functioning. Making sure the company owns the IP would allow for a disgruntled co-inventor or co-founder to leave the company with the IP still intact.

It’s also important to account for future innovation. As the company grows, employees may develop new innovative ideas for which you may seek patent protection. In these events, be sure to have contractual agreements in place to ensure the company owns the IP, not the employee. In the , the law will favour the employee as owner. The company may gain a shop right to use the invention without infringement but won’t own and be able to commercialize the invention.

Having ownership of a patent means you can monetize your invention through licencing agreements. Using the COVID-19 vaccine for example, the patent owners of each vaccine have the ability to license others to manufacture and distribute the vaccine. This has been a particular cause for concern due to compulsory licencing during emergencies, recently discussed on the . Global pandemic aside, inventors have the opportunity to capitalize on their success through a variety of licencing schemes, be it one-time payments, annual licencing fees or royalties.

It’s also important to consider that not all inventions can stand-alone. Consider an inventor who designed an eco-friendly jet engine. The engine alone doesn’t do much good, but licencing the invention to the companies that build planes offers a huge source of revenue. Licensing is often a two-way street. Your competitors may benefit from your invention, but their success is your success as well. By licencing your eco-friendly jet engine, you may ward off the competition from attempting to develop a non-infringing product. This not only keeps the competition in check but allows you to benefit from the success of all the licensees.

A patent is a powerful tool. It can be the basis of a company and open the door to a profitable licensing scheme. So long as you have a strategy to protect and license your patent there is a world of opportunity awaiting. As an inventor, you have 20 years to capitalize on your patent, so make the most of it.

Written by Maddie Lynch, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post You’ve got a patent, now what? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As an emerging market, you might be wondering what exactly is digital fashion? Amber Jae Slooten, co-founder of digital fashion house , defines digital fashion as ĚýDigital fashion pushes the boundaries of what materials can be represented and featured in a design. Buffalo London, a brand known most famously for their platform sneakers, created a shoe that uses Brands and designers are now increasingly designing digital fashion in response to consumer demand for avenues of self-expression in a virtual space. A joint venture with virtual sneaker brand Ěýand crypto-artist FEWOCiOUS, resulted in over

Digital fashion presents unique intellectual property considerations. As a highly collaborative industry, what might be the risks to artists and designers? Trademark Attorney Alison Cole poses that “ When a physical garment is converted into its digital twin, ownership may vary depending upon the particular software used. In some cases, ownership may vest in the 3D license holder. Subject to the particular scenario, questions of ownership could get quite complex. For example, an artist may create a design that is then converted into a 3D iteration by an agency with a third party combining these elements for an editorial. Artists should be aware of the effects of these arrangements and consider crafting specific contracts that ensure their work is protected in an agreed upon manner.

ĚýSteps Towards a More Sustainable and Inclusive Industry

Digital Fashion has the positive effect of prioritizing sustainability and inclusivity within the fashion industry.Ěý As per The Fabricant’s mantra “ As digital clothing requires no physical outputs and is made from pixels rather than textiles, the Further, with the use of digital production, artists can seamlessly switch between different shapes and heights of bodies.

Whether you’re interested in trying on virtual sneakers or creating your own designs, digital fashion is now a highly commercially viable asset. The future of digital fashion presents endless possibilities and as Dress-X encourages

Written by Samantha Melhado, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Your Next Pair of Sneakers Might Be Made Out of Fire & Here's Why appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This year’s problem was extremely timely to the pandemic-pervaded world that we find ourselves in. The topic is a dispute arising from research and development into the COVID-19 vaccine. The fictional problem involves Respondents granting Ross Pharmaceuticals (a third-party to the arbitration) an exclusive license to use a viral vector for the development of vaccines in the field of “malaria and related infectious diseases”. It is later discovered that the vector in question has a high potential of being used in respiratory vaccine development research. With the advent of COVID-19, Ross claimed that the arguably vague language used in the original licensing agreement allows them to carry out vaccine development for respiratory diseases using the vector. Later, the respondents granted the Claimant the rights to use that viral vector for vaccine development in the area of “respiratory infectious disease”. Once the claimants became aware of Ross’ allegation, they initiated an arbitration claiming that the Respondents had violated their contract by providing goods encumbered by a third-party IP claim in contravention of Article 42 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Good (CISG), which the Claimant believes applies to its contract with the Respondents.

In a nutshell, the claimants alleged that the respondents signed an agreement that Ross claimed gives them the right to carry out respiratory disease research using the viral vector; then, knowing of this claim, the respondents promised those very same rights to the claimant in violation of Article 42 of the CISG. As such, the Claimant request that the arbitral tribunal declare that the respondents breached their contractual responsibilities. In reply, the respondents allege that the claimant is relying of a frivolous claim in order to skirt their contractual responsibilities. This year’s dense fact pattern generates various interesting sub issues including: is Ross’ claim frivolous? Were the respondents obligated to inform the claimant of a third-party allegation that they consider spurious? Should the claimant have been aware of Ross’ claim before entering into the contract considering that an article published in a popular industry journal made the allegation public? I will answer these questions and give practical advice that flows from this hypothetical.

So, is Ross’ claim frivolous?

On its face, it would appear so as COVID-19 does not neatly fit into the category of infectious diseases related to malaria: COVID-19, unlike malaria is a respiratory disease. COVID-19, unlike malaria, is caused by a virus rather than by a parasite. COVID-19, unlike malaria, directly and primarily affects the respiratory system. However, the Claimant posits that as COVID-19 is an infectious disease with almost identical primary symptoms to malaria including fever, shaking, chills, headaches and muscle aches the question of whether COVID-19 is related to malaria is neither frivolous nor unfounded. Ultimately, while the underlying facts suggest that the intentions of Ross and the respondents were not to extend the license to respiratory disease research, the ambiguity of the language may be enough to justify a valid claim pursuant Article 42 of the CISG, thereby triggering a breach of contract.

So, were the respondents obligated to inform the claimant of a third-party claim that they consider spurious?

The claimants argue that since the respondents had actual knowledge of Ross’ allegation, they should have communicated this allegation to the claimants so that they may have availed themselves of their responsibility under the CISG. The respondents argue that as Ross' allegation is a frivolous negotiation tactic which poses no serious legal risk, they did not have this responsibility. While Ross’ claim is not the strongest, ultimately the respondents should have communicated Ross’ allegation to the claimants in order to avoid further fallout from their poorly worded initial agreement. While conveying this information may have allowed the claimants to negotiate a better deal, the risk of being pulled into a costly legal dispute and the tarnishing one’s reputation outweigh any benefit that is to be had by remaining silent on inconvenient allegations.

Finally, should the claimant have been aware of Ross’ claim before entering into the contract considering that an article published in a popular industry journal made the allegation public?

The statutory responsibility that buyers have to investigate the status of the IP they are purchasing is low under the CISG. Sellers are only exempted from their responsibility of delivering goods free from an IP claim if the buyer “knew or could not have been unaware of the right or claim”. However, as this hypothetical reveals, lacking information about the products one is purchasing can be highly prejudicial and unnecessary when there is publicly available information.

The main lessons to take from this hypothetical are threefold. First, the wording of IP transfer agreements should leave no room for ambiguity. Misunderstandings regarding IP rights are likely to result in not only disputes within the contracting parties, but with all other parties that have a stake in the IP in question. Second, transparency is key when transferring IP and one should not bank on inconvenient information remaining hidden. Third, although the licensor holds the greatest responsibility to ensure that the transfer of products does not lead to a subsequent IP dispute, the licensee is well to take reasonable steps to investigate publicly available information about the IP rights they are purchasing. In the modern world, having full information is key when it comes to making effective business decisions and doubly so when those decisions involve IP.

On a final note, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my teammates whose hard work has made Osgoode Hall proud. I would also like to thank our phenomenally dedicated coaches: Lauren Tomasich, Mani Kakkar and Sarah Firestone. They not only taught us how to be great advocates but also inspired us with their outstanding mentorship, passion and skill.

Written by Joaquin Arias, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Is COVID-19 related to Malaria? - Intellectual Property in International Commercial Arbitration appeared first on IPOsgoode.